Dear Sirs
Where can anyone find the documentation per Semantic Check Rule provided in ARIS Cloud Advanced so that they can visit and study what is the most applicable per model type or have a clear idea of what are the rules for EPC before executing them. I think it would be useful to add some sections on OnLine Help : Working with ARIS Cloud. At the moment only the procedure to invoke Semantic Checks and get the results is available
The ideal would be to have in the OnLine Help a short description per Rule
Any written description available at the moment will be highly appreciated .
Many thanks
M. Zschuckelt on
Hello,
each rule is described in the Administration module under "Evaluations -> Semantic checks -> Rule types" in the respective rule type for each rule.
Usually it is an administrator's task to configure the rule profiles to be used, which are an arbitrary set of rules to be applied upon execution of a semantic check profile. So it is up to each ARIS customer to select the set of rules to be applied. That will vary from customer to customer. An online help describing many many rules which may not be applicable would cause more confusion than help. In most cases a document will be written explaining when to use which rule profile on which model types at what quality gate and what the criteria are that must be met. Very often such a document will not only describe which semantic check profile is to be executed but also contain a check list for the user what he has to check additionally that cannot be done automatically (e. g. naming conventions that must be met). A description of what you can expect the semantic check rules to check can be nice to have, but the error messages that show up in case of violation should be fairly self-explanatory. The document you write should elaborate on instances when it might be o.k. to ignore "false positives" in the semantic check and why this is the case. Also it should give some guidance on interpreting the error messages, if there are typical situations in which it is not so obvious where to correct the error properly. For example with the existence rules (e. g. a role used in the EPC must have an occurrence in an org. chart) it may be that the error has to be corrected in a different model or even by a different role. The opposite interpretation of the same error might be that the modeller shouldn't have invented a role object but should've used an occurrence of one of the official roles prescribed by the owner of the org. chart.
So you see that the technical explanation of what should be the state syntactically is not enough to explain what should be done in terms of quality assurance and governance.